SHAMBHU RAM Vs. GURUDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Shambhuram and others against an order of the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 22nd December, 11952. transferring an appeal which was filed by the petitioners in that court under sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950), hereinafter referred to us the Rajasthan Premises Act. The petitioners filed their suit for increase in rent against the opposite party under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Premises Act in the court of the Munsiff, Jodhpur City. The Munsiff dismissed the suit, and the petitioners went up in appeal to the learned District Judge who transferred the appeal to the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, acting under sec. 221) of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 (Ordinance No. VIl of 1950) by the order which is being attacked by means of this revisional application.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned District Judge was a persona designate and not a civil court and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal to another court under the Civil Courts Ordinance. THE principal point for determination, therefore, is whether the learned District Judge,in taking cognizance of the appeal against the order of the Munsiff under sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises Act, was acting as an ordinary civil court of the land or was a persona designate. It is clear that if the later was the case, the learned District Judge would have no authority to transfer the appeal. THE argument of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Rajasthan Premises Act was a piece of special legislation enacted to control evictions from, letting of, and rent for, certain premises in Rajasthan. and the authorities appointed to deal with the matters arising out of this Act had been invested with special jurisdiction in so far as they dealt with them and were, therefore, not courts in the correct sense of the term. |